pinkmouse said:
Hybrid vigor... now to find a nice non-caucasian female with a big brain 🙂
dave
pinkmouse, in Darwinian evolution, selection is not a consciously directed process. That doesn't make it in any sense the basis of Darwinism! Also, I'm not advocating Darwinian selection. If you had really read my posts, as you claim to have, then you would have read where I said that unconscious selection cannot work in human civilization. I never said Darwinian evolution is what society needs -- clearly it is non-Darwinian.
audio-kraut, it is the experts (in terms of knowledge) that determine it, and as I said, the criteria are dynamic. The issue is creating an environment that will be conductive to these people to make decisions that are in the interest in the population rather than themselves. This cannot be done solely by social engineering (in nature vs. nurture, nature wins, and our nature is to live in small tribes where every relationship with those you can directly affect are personal; contrast this with civilization), thus the need for eugenics to also create these 'experts' to be closer to altruistic in terms of their psychoneurological/instinctual base. This is not at all practical in a democratic society (neither in the current pseduodemocracy, nor in a fantastical perfect democracy).
As for your other post, that's plain stupid, omniscience is an impossibility. Of course there cannot be omniscient humans, or groups of humans, or human-computer hybrids. Again this fallacy, that just because you cannot have it perfect, the status quo is OK. It's not OK, and much, much better can be easily done if you stop thinking with your bleeding heart.
As for your other post, that's plain stupid, omniscience is an impossibility. Of course there cannot be omniscient humans, or groups of humans, or human-computer hybrids. Again this fallacy, that just because you cannot have it perfect, the status quo is OK. It's not OK, and much, much better can be easily done if you stop thinking with your bleeding heart.
This joke has been totally lost on me. Either my brain is the one too small, or the joke is too small for someone of my stature.
The problem with with universal suffrage is that it encourages a discontinuity between the job and the ability to do the job. It lets the sort of charlatan that one would not allow to run a bath, nevermind a country, access to levers of power simply because an ignorant moron thinks "I'd like to have a beer with that guy" or some airhead likes his common touch. In no other walk of life would one invest so much in someone on such a flimsy basis. Worse still, more often than not, it means the country's government is determined by a combination of the stupid and the dishonest. It seems to me, that the hallmark of a functioning democracy is that the country is successful in spite of, not because of, its rulers.
planet10 said:
I strongly recommend Asian nurses. I saw a movie about that once. Well, maybe a few times...
Prune, it's time for you to put down the physics books and soak yourself in Hayek.
Prune:
I think maybe you've watched too much Star Trek. It sounds like you've modelled your world vision after the Borg. 🙂
I think maybe you've watched too much Star Trek. It sounds like you've modelled your world vision after the Borg. 🙂
But thats exactly what is needed when one wants to consciously select for traits. You require that - not i. You want to play "god" here, not i. You want to determine what constitutes beneficial traits - not i. You require the most extensive knowledge regarding genetics, not i.
Let me repeat - without that required knowledge and foreknowledge you just dabble as the old alchemist did. Trying to convert doodoo to gold.
If you lack this knowledge and forsight you wind up with like so many dogbreeds: emphasize one trait or a group of traits, but eliminate other beneficial ones, and you have the disaster on your hands that shows up in many dogs right now - totally instable mentally, all kinds of physiological and anatomical trouble.
Your eugenics can only work for the short term benefit of those who do not want to be confronted with a "non perfect" human being, but forgetting that traits that might be inherent there can be advantagous in future environments, insuring that the species does not vanish. Your experimentation leads to one thing - breeding for an elite's desired human to specs.
So you mean to say humans are one trick ponies, unable to acquire knowldge needed to do the government for and with the masses?
Don't you realize - or are you guys really historically "dense" that all of that has been tried with results whre the victims clearly speak against such experiments. Your suggestion is one of the basis of the nazi way to govern. Please - read the mein kampf, to know where are you going.
Prune said:
I feel strongly that nobody should be allowed to do either unless they can demonstrate that they can hear the difference between different brands of loudspeaker cable.
audio-kraut said:
Of course humans are able to acquire knowledge and govern in the interest of the many. It is just that more often than not, they do not. Politicians these days seem to be drawn from the least capable, most self-serving, most unimaginative and most mendacious in society. They are in the business of politics and an informed electorate is not in their interest. Allied to this is that appealing to the most ignorant in society is generally enough to get these jokers elected because the informed voter has little choice, either abandon politics or vote for the standing charlatan.
What exactly are you accusing me of? What have I suggested that is comparable with the antics of Hitler et al.? It was precisely this tendancy to appeal to the masses with simplistic solutions to complex problems that got Hitler into power. I've never read Mein Kampf but I doubt it was about obliging voters to be more informed in order to better hold politicians to account. Do you really believe that if the German populace fully understood the implications of voting for the Nazis in the 1932 elections, they would have still done it?
Mr. Hitler in his political theories espoused exactly the kind of theorie you try to put forward.
You should also know that hitler never received a majority vote to govern. He received 32% of the poular vote but was able to convince the president - hindenburg - to grant him extraordinary powers to take over the governing of germany - basically a coup.
Anyway, the peoples business should be conducted by the representatives of the people. Those interests should be argued over in a parliamentary setting where the feet of government can be held to the fire of critique. Almost anybody can speak for those they represent - otherwise those elected would not have come forward, as they through fighting the election have to be able to convince others of their capabilities.
I rather have somebody represent me whom I can hold to account than a group of selfchosen techno/meritocrats that are accountable to nobody.
Please keep in mind, that some of the evildoers were "meritorious" citizens - consider milosevich, a prof. and a wellknown poet. Consider mugabe, for most of his years beneficial to his country, consider robbespierre - one of those who wanted to clean up the french revolution and go a path where only those with sufficient merit should represent the french people.
Nobody denies that people of merit rather than scoundrels should be elected to represent the interests of all in a common arena - parliament. But they have to receive a mandate from those they want to represent, anything else is - if beneficial (usually as history shows only in the short run) or not, dictatorship.
audio-kraut said:
But I haven't put forward ANY theories, just criticism of the shortcomings of the current system.
From 3% in 1924 to 32% in 1932 is not to be sniffed at. I'm betting he didn't do that by reading the pasages advocating extermination from Mein Kampf at his rallies.
By definition, these people are representatives of the people but that is no guarantee of their competence. Simply being able lie convincingly is no qualification for being PM and once they are in thats it for the next however many years.
I'll try again. I am not suggesting that the ruling group be self-chosen even though in many democracies it is. I simply say, in order to be a politician or a voter, you should be able demonstrate some capacity for intelligent analysis of the issues involved in the case of the voter and competence in a number of arenas in the case of the politician. Our current PM used to be a lawyer and that would seem to be a prerequisite for politicians around here. Well, I cycle alot, so does that make me qualified to be Minister of Sport?
Both Milosevich and Mugabe retained power by appealing to narrow sectarian interests
At what point did I suggest the removal of the mandate? I have simply questioned the competence of a considerable sector of those giving the mandate.
mikeks said:
I just now got around to reading this paper and find it quite interesting and supports what I have believed for most of my life. Although I must admit I don’t know much about the present popular science theories, if this article is properly representing the majority of scientific thought and understanding then it seems very convincing that there is design to the universe. However, logic and common sense without any scientific knowledge will also present a similar conclusion.
Anyway I was just curious of how many of you agnostic/atheist had actually read that paper with an open mind, and what were your critiques.
It's more of the tired Paley argument, well disposed of more than a century ago. It's fine religion and I can't argue with it on that basis, but it isn't science and is most decidedly NOT taken very seriously by the vast majority of working scientists.
I'm answering this as a scientist; your request for only scientists of one particular religion (and a minority religion among scientists) to answer is puzzling, so I'll ignore it.
I'm answering this as a scientist; your request for only scientists of one particular religion (and a minority religion among scientists) to answer is puzzling, so I'll ignore it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.